Income Tax : The article explains remedies available after adverse tax orders under scrutiny and reassessment. The key takeaway is that choosin...
Income Tax : The Court clarified that mere pendency of information exchange requests under DTAA cannot justify continuing a Look Out Circular. ...
Income Tax : A surge in Section 143(2) notices was triggered by the June 2025 limitation deadline. This explains why cases were picked and how ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 271A cannot be levied merely because books were rejected and income was estimated. S...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an assessment completed before receiving the DVO report under section 50C(2) is invalid. All additions and disa...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : It has been observed that in many cases an assessee may wish to make a claim which was not made in the return of income filed unde...
Income Tax : We have attached a file in excel format. The file contains the format of various details which normally assessing officer asks As...
Income Tax : Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any mismatch in stock, sales, or accounting records before making...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually ex...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found that full payment, TDS deduction, and transfer of possession established completion of the transaction for capi...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and b...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier failed to respond to a notice under ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
The tribunal set aside the assessment after finding that faceless assessment proceedings were initiated before the scheme was formally notified, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of HRA exemption under Section 10(13A) as the assessee failed to submit any supporting documents for rent payments. In the absence of evidence, the claim of ₹1,08,000 was rightly disallowed.
The tribunal ruled that remuneration paid to a working partner cannot be disallowed when the partnership deed authorizes such payment and the amount is within limits prescribed under Section 40(b).
The Tribunal held that AMC services involving indeterminate acts over a defined period must follow the straight-line method under Section 43CB. The addition of ₹4.26 crore towards AMC receipts was therefore deleted.
The High Court set aside a tax demand issued under Section 156 because it was not based on any assessment or reassessment order. The ruling held that a demand notice cannot exist without a prior order determining tax liability.
The ITAT Mumbai held that when stamp duty value is disputed, the Assessing Officer should refer the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer erred in adding corpus donations to annual receipts to deny exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Recognizing such donations as capital receipts, the Tribunal restored the tax exemption.
Gujarat High Court quashed reassessment proceedings after finding that deduction claim under section 35(2AB) had already been examined during original scrutiny assessment. Reopening based on same material was held to be a change of opinion and therefore invalid.
The Calcutta High Court declined to interfere with an income tax assessment order, holding that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory appeal remedy is available. The Court directed the assessee to pursue the appellate process.
The Court held that merely earning higher profits by related concerns does not establish diversion of trust funds. Without evidence of undue benefit to specified persons, Section 13(1)(c) cannot be invoked.
